Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

ningrim Agreed. The flat tax doesn’t get rid of the IRS or the income tax amendment, so it is only a band-aid solution. The very next time Democrats control both houses, the flat tax will “evolve” back into an overly-complicated progressive tax like we have today. We have to repeal the 16th amendment to have any chance at lasting reform.

The Sentinel

PapaLouie ningrim
Good point.

Orangeone

PapaLouie ningrim The flat tax gets rid of all but home mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions which takes 99% of today’s tax return out.

kong1967

Orangeone So do you favor a flat tax over a fair tax? I personally don’t favor the fair tax because it puts an unfair burden on those who purchase more and strengthen the economy more. If you sit on your money you don’t pay taxes. That’s punishing a guy for spending money…..which is what you want people to do with that type of system…and rewarding a guy for not helping create jobs by spending money.

PapaLouie

kong1967 Orangeone Not taxing money until it is spent actually helps the economy. There are very few real misers who make money without spending some of it. But even so, money is rarely “sitting on the sidelines.” It is either in a savings account, the stock market, or being used to expand or create businesses. Money in banks is lent out to others who then spend it or invest it. Money in the market is invested in other peoples businesses. If someone stuffs their mattress with money, it is likely to be inherited or stolen by someone who will then spend it or invest it. The big boost to the economy comes from investments overseas being brought home and international companies investing here because there are no taxes on profits. That would create tons of jobs for people who will then pay sales taxes. Best of all, most of us will not have to save receipts, worry about what is deductible, or file any tax paperwork. I would sure like to try it for a year. I think most would never want to go back to the old system.

kong1967

PapaLouie Yes, all of that would be true and very good for the economy. Not a bad deal at all.

Orangeone

kong1967 Orangeone We would actually have both, flat tax at the income tax level, we have “fair tax” (is it really fair?) in the gas tax, state sales tax. I have no problem with fees for service like hunting & fishing permits, etc.

Orangeone

PapaLouie kong1967 Orangeone Take a look at my reply to Kong. If we have flat tax at the income tax level, remember we already have “fair tax” at the gas pumps, toll roads, state sales taxes, permits, licenses, etc.

kong1967

PapaLouie There is no guarantee that a fair tax would get rid of the IRS, either. No way are politicians going to give up their power and control with the use of taxes. They give breaks to friends and punish enemies. They also use it to control behavior of whatever they want. Extremely high taxes on smokes, for example. They eliminate taxes for businesses supporting their agenda, such as the green movement.
There’s no guarantee that government will not just keep adding separate taxes on everything on top of the fair tax. I’m positive they would and the purpose of the fair tax would have been defeated. They aren’t going to remove their power to tax at will.

PapaLouie

kong1967 PapaLouie True, unless we repeal the 16th amendment so the IRS loses it’s authority. I realize that’s a big task. But, if we can’t repeal the Income Tax amendment, we have to go with the flat tax. Otherwise, we will end up with an income tax, a national sales tax, and an IRS on steroids.

kong1967

PapaLouie Yes, abolish the IRS or take away it’s power to tax. Once take away it’s taxing authority it just as well disperse.

The Sentinel

ningrim
I agree 100%.
But I would be fine with either at this point.

kong1967

The Sentinel Good luck with getting either one. I don’t remember even seeing the Republican party take an interest in it aside from a very small few.

Ted is one of the very few who makes sense in Washington today.
Ted and Allen West in 2016… I believe we wouldn’t have a chance of losing with those two.

Orangeone

The Sentinel Have you watched the Judge Pirro clip tonight? You might even agree with me Cruz/Pirro 2016, Allen West Sec of Defense after you watch it.

kong1967

Orangeone But Pirro doesn’t have any political experience at all. I’d still vote for her if she was on the ticket. She’s awesome.

Orangeone

kong1967 Orangeone Even more reason to elect her next to Ted Cruz! She has tremendous boots on the group legal experience. If you aren’t familiar with her fight for women against domestic abuse, give her a search. She will pound the Dems into the ground with their War on Women nonsense.

kong1967

Orangeone I read her book. Remember? That reminds me, did you ever get the time to read it yourself?

The Sentinel

Orangeone The Sentinel
She’s excellent. I could see her as AG.

Orangeone

The Sentinel Orangeone :} VP for me and Mark Levin as AG (in my dreams) Could you see these brilliant minds bring our country back?

The Sentinel

Orangeone The Sentinel
I’d be cool with that too. Regarding this magnificent dream… um… I need to go take a cold shower now.

kong1967

The Sentinel I love those two and I would love the ticket, but I disagree with their chances of winning. They would be Palin-ized to the extreme, and many so-called moderate Republicans wouldn’t vote for them. However, after all this, maybe they would.

The Sentinel

kong1967 The Sentinel
You have a point. However, Libertarians would probably vote for those two, they would get a larger portion of the black and Hispanic vote, and conservatives would come out in record numbers for them. If one of them was a woman, it would be a virtual slam dunk imho.

kong1967

The Sentinel I’ll throw all my support behind them if they do it.

The Sentinel

kong1967 The Sentinel
As will I.

Orangeone

“I would tell the President to tell the truth.”

kong1967

Orangeone Lol, that would be about as effective as telling Helen Keller to watch and listen.
P.S. I am not insulting Helen Keller. I know she was very intelligent, talented, and overcame great shortcomings. I was merely making a point.

CD File

kong1967 Orangeone LOL, excellent!

applepie101

However, she was a socialist. She depended on what people told her. She had an excuse…we don’t.

kong1967

applepie101 I don’t really mind that she was a socialist…..of which I am completely unfamiliar. She couldn’t do anyone any harm.
We don’t need an excuse. We aren’t socialist, lol. Liberals have no excuse.

Orangeone

kong1967 Orangeone I know but it was a GREAT line!

Orangeone

I must disagree with Sen Cruz on one point. We do not need to expand immigration. We have 48 million people on food stamps, 23 million unemployed. Jobs are for Americans.

The Sentinel

Orangeone
Amen!

Orangeone

The Sentinel Orangeone I know what he is trying to say but we need to focus on putting Americans back to work, American children in our schools and colleges. I’m fine if Cuba wants to become a constitutional republic and helping to guide them. We need to guide other countries to improve, not bring their people here constantly.

kong1967

Orangeone Yep. We only have 5% of the world’s population and we can’t sustain ourselves if we keep allowing an unlimited amount of people to migrate here illegally. The number we allow in needs to be under strict control and only what we need. The best way to save the people that are leaving their homeland for more opportunity is help their countries increase the opportunities there.

The Sentinel

Orangeone The Sentinel
I think that if we go back to being that lighthouse on the hill as we have historically been, then maybe other countries would follow our method for success.

kong1967

Orangeone I completely agree with you, but we have to get Americans to do it. I know a lot of people don’t believe the argument that Americans won’t do certain jobs so we need immigrant workers that will, but I believe it wholeheartedly. I’ve listened to more than a few lazy young college aged kids say “I’m not doing that” and they choose to go on welfare instead. I’ve seen people go on welfare claiming there aren’t any jobs, yet I open the paper and see postings all over the place for non-skilled jobs. That’s below them, I guess.
I worked on a farm while I was going to college, and these kids now-a-days aren’t any better than me. Figure out how to get them off their butts and I’m with you. Of course, I am not including all young adults, but there are many of them.

The Sentinel

We’re also at the edge of a moral cliff.

kong1967

The Sentinel With Obama in office, I’d say we already went off the moral cliff.

pushtheredbutton

I would go further. Abolish the income tax. It was birthed unconstitutionally and is unconstitutional! But still, kudos to the Senator for this statement. Its something in the right direction.

SurfinCowboy

FairTax!
But if a flat tax was on the table – heck yeah I’ll support that too.

PicklePlants

SurfinCowboy I agree 100% – a Fair Tax has many advantages such as taxing the underground economy (drug dealers buy cars and boats, but do not report income), but a flat tax and *gasp* abolishing the IRS is a great step. We can then turn them into INS agents and solve two problems at the same time!

SheerPolitics

PicklePlants SurfinCowboy You will then have an underground economy of bartering goods and services to avoid the sales tax! Also, neither will totally abolish the IRS–they will be auditing the sales tax and maybe consumers if they suddenly appear to have a good income but are not “buying enough.” The majority of our economy’s revenue is from consumer purchases; a fair tax would quickly lead to a purchasing slow down and then, recession, IMO.

SurfinCowboy

SheerPolitics
You have that right now. The idea that there will be attempts at avoiding the FairTax is, of course, correct, but in the current system you need only one person to commit fraud, the person filing a fradulant IRS form, under the FairTax, you would need at least two people to engage. With two people, you open up the chance that one or the other would “rat” them out to the authorities. Remember, under the FairTax some of the revenue goes to the state as well, so the state will be monitoring for fraud as would anyone else who hears about this black market – for there will be rewards for turning in people engaging in such activity. To close on this, you already have fraud now, you will have some with the FairTax, but not like now.
Now onto this total abolishion of the IRS. Of course it won’t be “gone” completely, just have its mission redefined. It would check on businesses to make sure they are complying to the law (no surprise here), and as said before the local and state would also be checking – as would the individual, as previously stated. Customers, of course, would not be “audited”, because they are only purchasing. No way to track them. Tax is collected by the seller. The idea that people won’t “buy enough” is fine. If they are not, then they are saving or investing that money in our economy -which is good. Saving is better for the economy. Considering that prices on almost everything we buy will drop (because built into everything you currently buy are all the taxes on business, manufacturing, etc. – these are all removed in the FairTax), i don’t see a purchasing slowdown, rather an increase in some areas. The best way to avoid recession is a solid savings and investment atmosphere – an atmosphere encouraged (rather than discouraged under the current system) by a FairTax.

CD File

PicklePlants SurfinCowboy The idea that “the underground economy” is going to pay tax is a complete farce to sell that bill of goods that will end up a VAT.

SurfinCowboy

CD File
Anytime someone from the “underground ecomony” buys anything new, or any service they will pay the FairTax on that purchase. Any food, any supplies, any cars, anything really. So yes, they will pay the tax – it will be collected at every register.
The FairTax is nothing like a VAT. A VAT is added at every (or determined) stage of manufacturing, sometimes totalling seven or eight times. The FairTax is at the final point of sale only. A VAT is a terrible hidden tax, the FairTax is not hidden, it will be on the bottom of your receipt, letting the consumer know what they are being taxed and when it changes. FairTax is nothing like a VAT.

CD File

SurfinCowboy CD File If you knew and thing about SAP you’d know the infrastructure is already in place for …..might notice the terms “one dept. is a client of another” code for sales. You also can’t possibly be so naive in this age that anyone can have anything shipped in bypassing a tax……..only way to prevent …..heavy handed Customs enforcement …..AKA goodbye 4th Amendment.

SurfinCowboy

CD File
If by SAP you mean Sales and Purchase tax, yes I do know about it, and the FairTax is a type of SAP in part of its function, but it is a limited version even at that. The FairTax only taxes at the final point of consumption, and is only on new items, used ones (including homes!) are not taxed. Traditional SAP taxation is multi-level, much like a VAT, but a VAT focuses on moments of “value addition”, whereas SAP is more blind in its taxation.
If you didn’t mean that when you said SAP, then I don’t know what you mean, and you will have to explain.
The rest of your comment is obscure and hard to understand. Perhaps you can rephrase what you are trying to say? 4th Amendment? Customs? I’m confused.

kong1967

SurfinCowboy I lean flat tax, because a fair tax has inherent problems. First off, illegals band together and house a bunch in one residence then send most of their money back home to Mexico. Additionally, everyone else’s tax entirely depends on their consumption. If someone wanted to live a humble life they could just sit on their money and not pay many taxes. Someone who spends wildly pays a large sum of taxes, and they are helping the economy more by participating more. Yet they get punished with an unfair tax burden. There is the advantage of no one avoiding taxes….even underground criminals, but it is not fair by any means. It’s a deceptive name.

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
I am confused about your examples of problems.
First: This idea of “banding together” to send money to Mexico is already happening and many of these people avoid paying any tax right now, so with the FairTax you would be collecting tax on anything those people bought. Plus, many of these families falsify IRS forms and glean massive (in the billions of dollars) money from the IRS (which is us, the taxpayer) for fake children/dependents. That also is solved by the FairTax. If they chose to send the prebate back to Mexico, then they didn’t offset their own paying of the FairTax – so you got the tax, it is essentially a wash.
Second: Yes, it is based on consumption. Right now it is based on production, or work. If you are arguing that it is better to discourage work and production (which is the tax code we have now, and it encourages working less, investing less, and hiring CPAs to milk the tax code) than on consumption (which encourages saving and investing) then I will disagree. If you are trying to say that some people will avoid paying taxes by living humbly – well, where is their money they make going? Invested in something – a bank, securities, etc. all of this is good for the country, and that individual as well, since their savings and investments will not be taxed. Savings make a healthy economy, so your fears of someone living humbly is actually good for the country, not bad. Someone who spends wildly does pay tax (once again, only on new items and only above the prebate-refunded level) on purchases, but what is bad about this? Odds are this person spending wildly has money to spend wildly, which means they earned money from one source or another. If they earned it working, then right now they pay a higher tax with the current system, if they earned it in capital gains or some other method, they currently pay far higher than the zero percent they would under the FairTax. In the long run, this wildly spending individual will not only have more money to spend under the FairTax, but the goods and services they purchase will be cheaper under the FairTax, because built into the current price of goods and services are all the taxes that exist in the current system. FairTax wins out again, the unfair burden is in the current system.
Far from deceptive, when the FairTax is understood it is everything it claims to be: Fair.
Once again, given an option of a flat tax or the current system I would choose the flat tax. I ask you, if given the option of the current system or the FairTax, would you choose the current system?

kong1967

SurfinCowboy Aww, crap. I had a response finished and it vanished. I must have hit the delete button instead of the edit button. Sigh. Here we go again…..
As for the Mexicans, I was making the point that they have very cheap living expenses because they cram 25 people in one house, then they send most of the rest of their money back home to Mexico. I was making the point that although they do that already, the Fair Tax will not change that. They will still pay no taxes (especially after the prebate). However, I didn’t even think about the fraud committed on tax returns and I’ve heard reports of some of them getting up to $15,000 back. Fair Tax would kill that, so I give this part of the debate to you (you win).
I never said that the Fair Tax would be bad for the economy. I said (in one of my statements) that money saved in the bank to avoid taxes would still be used by banks to hand out loans or it would be invested in the markets. Both would be good for the economy. What I was referring to was the tax burden per individual. If one guy saves and lives like a hermit….and many people do…..he will pay no taxes. Yet another guy who makes the same amount of money that buys new e”verything” and wastes a lot of money ends up paying a lot more taxes. This is what I was saying wasn’t “fair”. Same income but with one guy paying no taxes while the next guy pays a ton of them. By the way, I hate that word. Life is not “fair”, get over it. I don’t use that word, but here it is part of the name of the tax, lol.
Additionally, our markets do so well now because people spend spend spend. People don’t save. The average debt is something like $7,000 (I’m going from memory, and my memory is faulty at times, lol). The Fair Tax encourages savings, which definitely is a good thing, but for the economy? If people aren’t spending there are less jobs and a smaller market. Question is, how much less money would be spent after the nation starts saving money instead of spending it? This I don’t know, but it will be less.
I don’t agree with your assumption that prices of goods and services will go down and people will have more money….effectively increasing everyone’s standard of living. Prices are based off supply and demand…and the value of the dollar. Everything will balance out to normalize. For instance….remove the tax on gasoline and the price will adjust itself. Demand would go up because of the lower price, but supply wouldn’t. So prices would go up again even without taxes. Apply that to everything. More or less, you can double the number of dollars, but all that would happen is that the value of a dollar would be cut in half. Reason being because everything adjusts to fit supply and demand. Standard of living might shift for various people, but the average standard of living will remain the same. Pumping more dollars into the system doesn’t change that, and that’s basically what you’re saying will happen (people have more money in their pockets).
However, I would be willing to give the Fair Tax a chance. Our current system is destructive and damaging to the economy. Why not? Let’s do it.

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Good conversation (I love TRS for this!). I still would focus on the savings that the guy who spends a lot of money gets from no income tax over the tax being brought through consumption rather than income/saving/investment taxation.
I believe you have three worlds this person could exist in, the current, the flat, and the FairTax. The current stinks. We agree on this. The flat is great, but of course as soon as the Congress that instituted said flat tax changes, here comes the tinkering and the tax code begins to change again. Plus, riders in almost every bill have tinkering with the tax law in it, so over time (soon in my mind) the flat tax will be morphed right back into the code we have today. The FairTax, by design, has a repeal of the 16th Amendment, so “changing back” to what we have now would require amending the Constitution, which I think stands little chance with the states that would have overturned said tax to begin with. So of the three options, I lean FairTax.
Understanding that the FairTax is hard to present to the people (and I do like your idea of seeing it tested out. Perhaps this testing is something we could accomplish, like letting a state change over for a specific period of time – unfortunately there would never be the results of no taxes on business, capital gains, etc. because the test would only be occurring in a small island in the midst of the current taxing sea. Testing should be able to generate some data, regardless of this. Great point) and even harder to pass through Congress (who has BIG power in tinkering with the current code and playing class warfare), then I figure the flat tax has a far greater likelihood to pass. So as much as I preach and teach FairTax, I accept that we will most likely get a chance at a flat tax before the glorious day we repeal the 16th Amendment, deflate Marxism and Congressional power, and institute the FairTax.
I love me some flat tax right about now! Haha. Nice conversation. Thanks.

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Your original post posted I think, but I will add to what you put in this one:
Your supply and demand points are well taken, but your example of removal of the gas tax and how price would adjust is slightly off. A tax on something like gas increases the price, signaling that the good is more scarce than it actually is. Some consume less because of this tax, but all who use are taxed. When you remove the tax, there will be an accurate price of what the commodity costs, there would be a slight adjustment up for the increase in usage, but this would pale to the original price with the tax included. The tax creates false pricing.
Under the FairTax, let us say I make pencils. Everything I buy to make my pencils comes from other companies that make them. Thinks like paint, wood, graphite, metals, etc. are all produced and shipped to me, where I assemble them into a pencil. Every company in this chain is paying income tax, corporate tax, and a liteny of other taxes as they produce their product. The FairTax removes ALL of these taxes, and since I, as a pencil maker, am not an end user of the products I purchase from my suppliers, the paint, wood, etc. is not taxed when sold to me. The tax is not even applied when I sell my pencils to the store that sells them to you, it is only applied at that final state when you buy the pencil. The removal of ALL these taxes will lower the overhead of the company producing, therefore allowing these companies to produce their materials at a lower cost and allowing them to lower their prices in competition with other companies that do not reside in the US (where we have the FairTax), lowering my overhead as a pencil maker, therefore lowering the cost for me, then the price I sell at, then finally the price you see at the store.
Businesses will swarm to the US to produce their products under this plan, even further increasing the FairTax base and, as a lovely side-effect, our jobs and economy.
I am pleased with this conversation with you, and thank you for expressing your concerns. TRS rocks!

kong1967

SurfinCowboy You said that after the FairTax is passed it would take an amendment to the Constitution to go back to what we have now, and that it would very difficult to do. Wouldn’t it be just as difficult….if not more so…..to get the 16th amendment repealed?

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Yes it would be difficult, the idea that is used in the bills proposing the FairTax in the House (H.R. 25) and the Senate (S. 13) is as follows: The FairTax will be implemented for a period of two years, if by the end of the two years the 16th Amendment has not been repealed, then the FairTax is removed and we return to the original system in place. This gives the FairTax a period to “prove” itself to the public, and the time needed for the States (who also gain revenue from the FairTax) to support the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The idea is that when the obvious benefits of the FairTax are seen, the public (and the state legislatures) will WANT to repeal the 16th in order to keep the FairTax. This also avoids an income tax being implemented on top of the FairTax.
This is an ok listing of FAQs: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Oops, sorry, it is a 7 year period in which the repeal must take place. I thought 2 was a bit fast! Haha. Bill text is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.25:

kong1967

SurfinCowboy I would think the transition would be a major one. Is there a time allowed for transition before the old tax system is dropped before the FairTax starts? Surely it would take some time for businesses to implement the change.

kong1967

SurfinCowboy Ah, that’s better. There is time for businesses to implement the change and still have time for testing results.

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
It would be hard to comment on this point, because in the assumptions you put forth, all of the changes in the final cost to the consumer from the FairTax are brushed aside. The FairTax would make it much cheaper for the company to bring the gas to the pump for the consumer.
Your point on OPEC is a good one, but the price paid to OPEC (or whomever supplies the oil, global market, global price and such) remains the price paid to OPEC.
Look at it this way: The global price of oil is $2, after all taxes are paid the company needs a profit so it reaches the pump at $4 to the consumer. Under the FairTax the idea is that most of those taxes disappear and the company still makes its profit when the gas is sold at $3 at the pump. The price paid on the market is still $2, it just cost less to get it to the consumer, there is no change yet. Now we bring in the increased consumption of oil because of the lowered price, and like you stated, the demand rises, so rises the global market price – but it rises at the OPEC/supplier end from the $2 level, and overall the price will stabilize below the pre FairTax number of $4. Add to this the number of companies that work in the oil/gas industry who will want their HQ to now be in the USA where there is the FairTax and you begin to see the “spillover” effect of the benefits of a consumption tax in the US when other countries are taxing those businesses. The more new businesses that come in create an increase in tax revenue, and then a decrease in the FairTax rate – making things even better!
It is not all rainbows and sunshine of course, we still need to focus on shrinking the size of the Federal government and curtail its activities as a whole – as these things are done and the Federal gov. consumes less money, then there is less revenue needed, and the FairTax rate falls.
It is “pie in the sky”, but the more people understand and talk about it the more likely it will become real. Heck, the Democrats held onto national health care for over 100 years and just got their foot in the door in 2010 – hold onto the idea and stay focused I say.
In the mean time – flat tax ahoy!

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Yes, there is time allowed for the change-over, and any product that a company has already purchased (like warehoused items, etc.) is allowed a credit to offset the cost that would be incurred by the business. Most of the change is business reducing the number of people they need to do their taxes, and retailers adjusting their cash registers to add the tax – like most already do when they process state sales taxes.

SurfinCowboy

kong1967
Once again I would like to say that your idea of a test is excellent.

kong1967

SurfinCowboy Lol, I didn’t get a notice in my email that you ever sent another message to me. I thought you got tired of talking about it.
I’m not an expert in economics, that’s for sure. I have a layman’s understanding of it, but I get the general concepts.
You seem to know it very well, so I’m going to give you credit and believe you are right. Let’s get the FairTax going.

DeborahClemence

Russia has had a 13% flat tax since 2012… and non-citizens pay more! Now, there’s a concept!!!

RobHorine

DeborahClemence Been saying for years that money wire transfers that go out of the country should have a 25% usage tax. Immigrant workers are sending our dollars, some legal, some not. We should get some of that money.

kong1967

RobHorine Eh, I don’t know about that. If they are legal and they worked for that money, it is not “our dollars” any more. We got the trade in services or labor already and we have no business taxing to get it back because somehow it is still our money. I’m sorry, but that sounds a lot like Democrats who consider all the money theirs even after you earned it. Our country does need immigrant workers, and you would be punishing them for it.

kong1967

DeborahClemence I’m not disagreeing with you at all, but I’m not so sure about the non-citizens paying more. Illegals, yes….but on the other hand the illegals shouldn’t even be here to earn that money to begin with. But we need legal immigrant workers, so why would we discourage anyone from coming here? Maybe it’s ok, but I’d have to hear why.

SheerPolitics

kong1967 DeborahClemence The problem is how do you tell the illegals sending money out of the country from legal immigrants. We are the major financier the Mexican economy right now with the dollars being sent out to them along.

kong1967

SheerPolitics Yes, I know. If we shipped all of them home the Mexican economy would collapse.
If we can’t distinguish between illegal / legal money being earned, then we don’t tax any of them at a higher rate. If we’re going to use their labor then we need to be fair with how we treat them. I mean, you can’t say “you earned the money but since you’re not a citizen we’re going to confiscate it to get it back. RobHorin wants it to be 25%, which is pure confiscation.

RobHorine

Well, the IRS now know who their Public Enemy No. 1 is now.

kong1967

Come on, Eric…..bipartisan support? I don’t know what planet you’re on, but Democrats would never support legislation that reduces their power. Republicans won’t, either. Eric is expecting bipartisan support and I don’t believe he’s going to get any support from either party. Republicans do not represent small government any more, and they call Cruz a wacko bird for wanting to limit the powers of the federal government.
I love Cruz but he will be run out of office just like Allen West. And it won’t just be the Democrats doing it. It will be McCain and Boehner as well. Mark my words.

Roy DilleHayes

kong1967 a fair question from a reporter to continue the conversation. But you are right Neithe the Dems or GOP will support it just the Wacko Birds

kong1967

Roy DilleHayes Lol, maybe there are enough of us wacko birds now that we can get it done. Worth a try.

SheerPolitics

kong1967 No, he won’t be run out of office, because we here in Texas LOVE that man!

kong1967

SheerPolitics I’m sure they will try. Did you hear about the Dems plan to take Texas away from the conservatives? You can’t make this stuff up.

SheerPolitics

kong1967 First of all, they are dreaming. Even when we had a democrat run state, we were still more conservative. Then as the democrat party became radically left, that’s why we became a conservative republican state.
But I do agree the RINO GOP party will try to come after Cruz should he run for president. I feel quite certain they were the ones behind bringing down Cain.

kong1967

SheerPolitics …and they gerrymandered to get rid of Allen West.
God bless Texas. It’s the strongest conservative foothold in the nation when it comes to electoral votes.

http://nation.foxnews.com/ americalsgt

kong1967 SheerPolitics Do you really believe that they can’t turn Texas blue? I’m sure many would have said the same thing about Colorado 10 – 12 years ago. What happens when the borders are flooded with illegals and they get the right to vote and do so to keep their benefits. Sounds like a recipe for blue to me.

cabensg

SheerPolitics I have a disagreement with the statement the Rino Gop brought down Cain. Cains did himself in. The three women the press tried to use against him disappeared because it was bogus but the woman Cain was involved with innocently or otherwise was real. If your running for president you tell you wife what’s going on and you disconnect or handle the situation with the other woman before you enter the race. I found his handling of this naive and extremely unfair to the people who donated and supported his campaign.

CD File

cabensg SheerPolitics Cain was wishy-washy from the start and it was completely ridiculous to claim an ex fed chair would have TP support.

kong1967

americalsgt Hey now. Knock it off. You’re scaring me.
Actually I do believe they can over time, but Texas can fight back. Time will tell. For the time being, though, they have an uphill battle.

kong1967

cabensg He was losing my support anyway. I still liked him but he was starting to crack on his answers. What’s the solution to the Middle East crisis? 999!!! How do we solve the crisis at the souther border? 999 !!!
That was obviously made up, but you get the point. He was answering 999 to too many questions. Additonally, when they asked him about the Middle East (I believe, but it was foreign policy for sure) he flunked beyond badly. He didn’t even act like he knew what the reporter was talking about.
I still liked the guy, though.

cabensg

CD File I was trying to be kind. I never supported Cain…ever. I found him flippant and uninterested in what it really takes to run for president which makes his arrogance in not handling the situation even worse seeing how many supporters sent him money.

PatriotInk

I think Sen. Cruz is an extremely decent man. That said, I believe that the http://www.FairTax.org abolishes the IRS. The Flat Tax does not.

Roy DilleHayes

PatriotInk Actually neither abolishes the IRS but both do reduce it and diminish it to a fraction of what it is now. I happen to like both FairTax and FlatTax. One or the other is good

JeffreyFaircloth

Roy DilleHayes PatriotInk What H.R. 25 does is repeal the 16th amendment which in effect does abolish the IRS. Please read the bill.

SheerPolitics

PatriotInk Fair Tax does not abolish the IRS because they will be auditing the business to make sure they’re collecting the tax. Then there’s the rebates some say are the solution to help those below the poverty line. IMHO, it would be disastrous to our economy. It would increase purchases by at least 30% –you didn’t think the state/city sales tax is going to go away, do you? It would start up a huge black market as people barter to avoid paying sales tax. Flat tax wouldn’t eliminate the IRS either but I think it would be fair and wouldn’t have all the complications of rebates. But expect the accountant’s, CPA’s and tax lawyer lobbies to oppose either!

I hate to be a downer, but do you really think the abolition of the IRS is remotely possible? Seven of the ten richest counties in the country surround Washington D.C. Do you think so many of them will give up their gravy train? Our government has become what the HAL 2000 computer was in 2001: A Space Odyssey – a life force all it’s own. It’s a super structure that operates by it’s own laws. That’s why the IRS officials that testified over the past few weeks were so arrogant. They said “come and get me” because we know we can’t. And that government universe is still expanding, with a voracious appetite.
Allowing government workers to unionise was one of the great mistakes this country made in the 20th century. Even FDR knew it would be a catastrophe.

applepie101

You forget…they DID unplug HAL. Little by little.

welltempered2

applepie101 I’ll happily add an addendum when the same happens in D.C., not deep space.

applepie101

welltempered2 applepie101 Sometimes I think we ARE in deep space. Or maybe just a deep, deep hole…

K-Bob

applepie101 I volunteer to go into the big monolith thingy after unplugging the I R S.

yazz55

While fair tax, flat tax etc sound like good ideas on the surface and make for good 5 second sound bytes, the devil is in the details. At best it trades off one set of known problems for new unknown ones. Any new tax system will generate many new problems that probably won’t rear their ugly heads until after its implemented. You just can’t anticipate every issue in advance.
Its way too complex to begin addressing it and giving it justice in a forum like this.
For starters, I recommend reading

Its some years old, but still relevant.
I think its a good place to start any discussion of tax reform…after you’ve read it

And once you get beyond the Federal tax systemic problems, the state tax issues and problems can be 50 different nightmares of their own.

KatRogers

yazz55 Yes, each system has their own complex issues, but to be fair; we’ve tried the system we have now for long enough to know that no matter how hard we try or what we do, there are always loopholes and always ways around the laws we try to create to fix a system that’s broken and has been from the get go. The tax system we have now punishes creation and ownership. It assumes that the government has a right to what we earn and what we create simply because we have the luck to be in the country we are in. The FairTax doesn’t punish anything, and abolishes the IRS (unlike the flat tax).

jbennettatty

Cruz should be for the FairTax instead.

CD File

jbennettatty You need to look alittle deeper into the exploitability of the Fair Tax.

jbennettatty

CD File jbennettatty Do you care to be more specific? I am an expert on the FairTax.

GregoryYates

jbennettatty The ONLY fair tax is one that is equally levied.

jbennettatty

GregoryYates jbennettatty The FairTax IS equally levied, on ALL consumption above the poverty level. Check out http://www.fairtax.org.

Conniption Fitz

9/9/9 or 10/10/10 flat tax plans are not fair to poor and middle class working folks.
Better would be 2-4-6-8-10 depending on income. That would be fair.

roasted7

Conniption Fitz
A person makes $100 pays $10 and a person who makes $1000 pays $100. How is that not fair? Under the current tax system politicians get to pick who pays what and who doesn’t. Mainly based on political contributions.

applepie101

‘Fair’ is a subjective socialist concept. How about ‘equal?’

I think the problem ConniptionFitz recognizes is cost of living. People who earn a subsistence level salary are going to be harder hit by a 10% tax than someone earning $300,000. One way to prevent this might be for states to set an average cost-of-living baseline applied for everyone, and for the flat tax to kick in on earnings above that level. That would not be ‘fair’ by socialist standards, but it would be equal.

Conniption Fitz

applepie101 – Thanks – that is absolutely what I meant!

Callie369

Why do you comment on something you know nothing about? The first $10,000 would not be taxed at all. So someone making $20,000 would only pay $100. How is that not fair? It isn’t right that people contribute nothing to the country they feed off of. And, hopefully it would put an end to the EIC, which is so badly abused by so many,
You would do your tax return on a post card size form! Same for businesses/corporations. They would have a flat tax of 10%, no deductions, loopholes, nothing.

Orangeone

Callie369 Notice that “fair” is a progressive term. Cruz is promoting a flat tax.

Conniption Fitz

OK Everyone – I STAND CORRECTED.
I’M NOT A TAX ATTORNEY, CPA OR ECONOMIST.
I liked Michele Bachmann’s idea that EVERYONE should pay something to have a stake in our nation.

Orangeone

Conniption Fitz It’s okay, this is a discussion and you have valid points. Yes Bachmann is correct everyone should pay.

CD File

Conniption Fitz 999 is nothing like a flat tax it only gives a new exploitable avenue ……why it got laughed off.

jbennettatty

Conniption Fitz That is a typical knee-jerk reaction from someone who has not studied the FairTax. The FairTax, first, abolishes the two most regressive taxes that exist today: the payroll tax and the tax costs that are passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices. That’s food, medicine, shelter and clothing. Then the FairTax features a prepayment to every lawful resident of the US regardless of income to reimburse the household for sales tax paid for necessities – up to the poverty level. Go to http://www.fairtax.org.

Orangeone

Conniption Fitz That’s a progressive tax which is what we have now. Just because I earn more doesn’t mean I should pay more. That’s penalizing for success.

applepie101

‘Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words! I get words all day through, first from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do?’ (My Fair Lady)
I have high hopes in Ted Cruz, but when he praises John McCain, all I can think of is McCain as one of Chuckie Schumer’s ‘Our Republicans’. Enough of this ‘professional courtesy’ to senior senators who have been undermining US national security for years. Senator Cruz, if you can’t bring yourself to call McCain the idiot he is, just say “He’s wrong,” and leave it at that. We sent you to congress to be David against Goliaths like McCain. Stop making nice, and sling those stones!

BearNJ

applepie101
Remember its still politics. Cruz is like a velvet hammer
destroying the left and Big government Rinos argument while being
respectful. The Left are employing its Saul Alinsky tactics at Cruz.
The Big Government Rinos say he’s not one of us. They can’t attack
Cruz (like they did Reagan or Palin) of being “Dumb” (Their term
for anyone who doesn’t have an Ivy league degree & majored in
Bankrupting the USA) because he ‘s too smart and accomplished. The
default position is the “Newt” treatment that he’s “mean”,
“disrespectful” and a “wacko-bird”. Cruz is too smart to play
into that name game. He won’t back down from his positions and will
argue the case respectfully. If you look at all the dust ups he’s had
he’s always been deferential. Its smart politics. He’s not giving the
Leftists any video ammo to support their BS attacks. What are they
going to show? Cruz passion and intellect in defending the Bill of
Rights?

applepie101

I worry about the effectiveness of a constitutional warrior who’s afraid of ruffling feathers. I hope you’re right, though.

Laurel A

applepie101 When and where has he been afraid to ruffle feathers??

cabensg

applepie101 Geesh! Didn’t you see him ream Reid a new one and McCain to on the Senate floor. I know Scoop had it here on the site. He not only ruffled their feathers he plucked them out one by one.

Orangeone

cabensg applepie101 Not to mention Feinstein and Schumer!

NJK

BearNJ applepie101
Notice the “Wacko Bird,” comment came from the man posing for a photo with Al Queda.

strangernfiction

applepie101 Even the best R’s leave a lot to be desired.

Laurel A

applepie101 I haven’t heard him praise McCain..just slight of hand derogatory remarks but remember they have to get along as well. that’s politics and the line is very thin.

Orangeone

Laurel A applepie101 Correct. Everything on the Senate floor must be done in accordance with protocol, although the Dems and RINOs ignore it, Senators Cruz and Lee respect it.

IsaiahHess

applepie101 I interpreted what Cruz said as taking a subtle swipe at McCain. The praise was constrained to those things that McCain does deserve some praise for (e.g. his military experience). Cruz then shifted to policy discussion, and he that’s when he knocked McCain down a notch (i.e. “standing for liberty”, thereby implying McCain wasn’t).

cabensg

applepie101 It’s not praise for McCain. It’s called conduct becoming a Senator. Unlike McCain who had to resort to name calling Cruz took McCain apart politely on the Senate floor without getting in the gutter with name calling like liberals and McCain need to do. Cruz knows how to stand up to Rino’s and liberals when it counts and doesn’t back down.

http://nation.foxnews.com/ americalsgt

I took two classes of the dismal science back to back in college taught by one of Eisenhower’s economic advisers and recall falling asleep one spring day in the Economic History and woke up to see new people around me and now half way through Econ 101. My point is I don’t know much about Economics as Sam Cooke might have sung, but I do have a question to those of you posting here and that is “How much worse could the Flat Tax or a variation of that be than the bloated bureaucracy we have and who is now going to be given the right to determine if you are eligible for a refill of your Vytorin next month?”

335blues

The gestapo irs and the 70,000 pages of the tax code exist for only one reason- to punish political enemies and reward political friends using taxpayer money. Abolish the irs and the tax code and establish a flat tax that is fair to all.

Laurel A

I’m trying really hard not to hero worship him….

cabensg

Laurel A Me too!!

PVG

cabensg Laurel A Ditto!

Orangeone

Laurel A Giggles! Take a listen to his new post, what an awesome speech!

UrFecalFecal

Why do we need a tax on personal income at all???? Before 1913 we didn’t have it-it took a Constitutional Amendment-and the Country seemed to do alright. Don’t tax wealth creation, tax consumption, leave exempt food, staples, and necessities. Want more money from the “rich”?? Tax luxury goods and houses over a certain price at a higher rate.

cabensg

UrFecalFecal The problem is who decides who is rich and what is a luxury item. As long as we’re letting others decide who to screw financially, and their part of the bureaucracy we call government they cannot be trusted.

standbesideherUSA

Flat tax is fair.
IRS is not ‘fair.’
They expect more time
to comply with congressional requests for records but do THEY afford
American Citizens that luxury? Heck no!
Get rid of the IRS so average Americans can do their own taxes, if they want to!

Orangeone

standbesideherUSA And in actuality if you are disputing your tax burden, you must pay the tax before you can sue.

NJK

I’m going to send Mr. Smith something nice. I love this man. Every citizen in this country needs to pay their “Fair share.” The only ones with no skin in the game are those who are living here, but not paying anything. The progressive income tax is communist. There’s no place for that in America. It’s time to put the workers, oh, excuse me, thieves in the IRS out of work.

PVG

This ineptulant narcissistic fraud in the wh has one, and one obligation only…….to himself!

froggy19510

PVG I had to read this twice to understand your point. WH should be capitalized and it would make it easier to understand. You are right about Barak Hussen Obama. His loyalties are only to himself.

PNWShan

“Simple tax form you can fill out on a postcard…” I’ve been hearing that since Steve Forbes ran for President.
I’d love it, but too many interests are invested in the current system.

froggy19510

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendment to the US constitution and take the power from the Federal Governmant and give it back to the States. Institute a flat tax (not a value added tax) on all goods and services exempt food and gasoline. It’s fair and you don’t have to have some beaurocrat snooping into your affairs.

VIRUSX2K1

The 17th Amendment doesn’t have any bearing on fair and constitutional taxation, and I’ll have to completely disagree with Cruz, on this one. We don’t need to replace one tax scheme, with another. By simply going back to what was, and is, constitutional, we would see the ending of direct taxation, pretty much, altogether. The Foundng Fathers didn’t want direct taxes, hence, the Constitution said that they were to tax imposts, excises and duties. All indirect taxes levied against imports, exports and, pretty much, a sales tax on certain goods & services. Any direct taxation had to be done in accordance to census figures and by capitation, so states of lesser population would pay less than the more densely populated states. Then, there was the provision to tax at least 3/5 of non-Americans (such as Indians). With all that, you lose income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax, etc. Businesses could become awash in their own money, just as consumers could. That would lead to a rapid breaking down of the unemployment rate, and act as a real economic stimulus.
Then, you have all the unconstitutional spending:
Article 1, Section 9:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receips and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
In following that, all unconstitutional spending (such as unfunded liabilities) would be stopped, and we’d collect more than enough in tax monies to keep the essential functions of the federal government going. The rest, such as welfare, unemployment, social security, would go to the States and the People. But the “flat” or “fair” tax is just another tax scheme that’s not needed. The Constitution prohibits it, and all Cruz is doing is advocating breaking the law, just like any garden variety liberal democrat.

Callie369

“Unfortunatly I think this whole argument may be moot due to the fact that 49% of the population do not pay income taxes now.”
Please consider that 23% of that 49% are seniors on social security. In addition, many are low grade military who are not exactly paid high enough wages to have to pay taxes. When you have a wife and children and make $16,000 a year, what do you expect? My military grandson has a wife and 2 kids and does not take any kind of handouts such as food stamps.
As for the “fair tax,” it would still require a bureaucracy to keep on top of who spends what and to handle the refunds. Ridiculous when a flat tax would enable the abolishment of 99% of the IRS.

froggy19510

Callie369 Please consider that 23% of that 49% are seniors on social security.
As for seniors being on a fixed income, I can understand your point. My wife and I are on a fixed incom as well. I would vote for a national sales tax because the IRS is uncontrolable and a progressive income tax is theft.
You are right. I do not think that the military is paid enough. Even if they do get free medical, dental, and eye care, can buy at base or post commassaries, BXes PXes etc, and eat at very good dining facilities and get low cost meals.
My military grandson has a wife and 2 kids and does not take any kind of handouts such as food stamps.
Why not if he is eligible? I would do anything to provide for my family including taking food stamps if I couldn’t afford food.
As for the “fair tax,” it would still require a bureaucracy to keep on top of who spends what and to handle the refunds. Ridiculous when a flat tax would enable the abolishment of 99% of the IRS.
I am not supporting a “fair” tax I am advocating for a national sales tax. For such a tax to work you would have to repeal the 16th amendment.

Bullcrap. All that’s doing is replacing one tax scheme, with another, which is just as much against the law, as the current tax scheme is. Direct taxation is something the Founders were very much against, and you just want to find a more creative way of doing it. If anything is theater, its trying to pass off a new tax scheme as “fair”, when it runs counter to what the Founders wanted, in the first place.

Michael1957MN

VIRUSX2K1 You have a good point. However, a flat or fair tax scheme is probably about as close as we can hope to get to the Founder’s vision. In this day and age. Not that we shouldn’t try, but either of these would be a good first step.

GregoryYates

Michael1957MN VIRUSX2K1 Issues of this day and age are the problems. If the government were out of the business of playing nanny to those who can’t/WON’T take care of themselves/their own, the story would be totally different.

Cruz talks well enough, but he is a republican and a conservative seeking power. We need people who will simply do the right thing! Without regard to whose defective, partial agenda gets put aside. Who can do this? No one really that I know of except Jesus. The real Jesus of Nazareth. Not the 12th Imam, not the pope, not a jesuit, not the beast and/or the anti-Christ, not a free mason, not an illuminated luciferian, no more Skull and Bones. Not any man but the Son of God. Jesus is coming! R U red E 2 C Him?